The reference method for cefiderocol antimicrobial susceptibility testing is broth microdilution (BMD) with iron-depleted-Mueller-Hinton (ID-MH) medium, whereas breakpoints recommended for disk diffusion (DD) are based on MH-agar plates. We aimed to compare the performance of the commercial BMD tests ComASP (Liofilchem) and UMIC (Bruker), and DD and E-test using MH- and ID-MH-agar plates with the reference BMD method using 100 carbapenem-resistant-A. baumannii isolates. Standard BMD was performed according to the EUCAST guidelines; DD and E-test were carried out using two commercial MH-agar plates (BioMérieux and Liofilchem) and an in-house ID-MH-agar plate, while ComASP and UMIC were performed according to the manufacturer’s guidelines. DD performed with the ID-MH-agar plates led to a higher categorical agreement (CA, 95.1%) with standard BMD and fewer categorization errors compared to the commercial MH-agar plates (CA BioMérieux 91.1%, Liofilchem 89.2%). E-test on ID-MH-agar plates exhibited a significantly higher essential agreement (EA, 75%) with standard BMD compared to the two MH-agar plates (EA BioMérieux 57%, Liofilchem 44%), and showed a higher performance in detecting high-level resistance than ComASP and UMIC (mean log2 difference with standard BMD for resistant isolates of 0.5, 2.83, and 2.08, respectively). In conclusion, DD and E-test on ID-MH-agar plates exhibit a higher diagnostic performance than on MH-agar plates and the commercial BMD methods. Therefore, we recommend using ID-MH-agar plates for cefiderocol susceptibility testing of A. baumannii.

The reference method for cefiderocol antimicrobial susceptibility testing is broth microdilution (BMD) with iron-depleted-Mueller-Hinton (ID-MH) medium, whereas breakpoints recommended for disk diffusion (DD) are based on MH-agar plates. We aimed to compare the performance of the commercial BMD tests ComASP (Liofilchem) and UMIC (Bruker), DD and E-test using MH- and ID-MH-agar plates with the reference BMD method using 100 carbapenem-resistant-A. baumannii isolates. Standard BMD was performed according to the EUCAST guidelines, DD and E-test were carried out using two commercial MH-agar plates (bioMérieux and Liofilchem) and an in-house ID-MH-agar plate, while ComASP and UMIC were performed according to the manufacturer’s guidelines. DD performed with the ID-MH-agar plates led to a higher categorical agreement (CA, 95.1%) with standard BMD and fewer categorization errors compared to the commercial MH-agar plates (CA bioMérieux 91.1%, Liofilchem 89.2%). E-test on ID-MH-agar plates exhibited a significantly higher essential agreement (EA, 75%) with standard BMD compared to the two MH-agar plates (EA bioMérieux 57%, Liofilchem 44%), and showed a higher performance in detecting high-level resistance than ComASP and UMIC (mean log2 difference with standard BMD for resistant isolates of 0.5, 2.83 and 2.08, respectively). In conclusion, DD and E-test on ID-MH-agar plates exhibit a higher diagnostic performance than on MH-agar plates and the commercial BMD methods. Therefore, we recommend using ID-MH-agar plates for cefiderocol susceptibility testing of A. baumannii.